CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING NO. 3

NOVEMBER 2, 2006

M I N U T E S

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chair, Praveen Soni, in the Towner Auditorium. All voting members were present except: COE: T. Ebert; CNSM: S. Crass; STAFF: C. Rice; EX OFFICIO: W. Griffith, G. Riposa, D. Robinson, A. Taylor, R. Vogel. EXCUSED ABSENCES: D. O’Connor, T. Mangir, L. Huckabay, C. Lee, LIB: L. Andersen, STDSVCS: R. Moreno-Alcaraz; ADMIN: C. Lindsay, M. Merryfield; V. Jacobo; R. Kochan.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

The Agenda for the November 2, 2006 Academic Senate meeting was approved as distributed.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of the September 21, 2006 Academic Senate meeting were approved with the following corrections to the Minutes to reflect that the following Academic Senators were present: Karen Clippinger, Edward Smith, Mike Walter, Robert Friis, Alexandra Jaffe, Val Jacobo, and Laura Kingsford.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS

a. Beth Smith, from Graduate and Undergraduate Studies, Advising and Retention, will be helping out in the Academic Senate Office for the next few months to assist during vacations, leaves, and absences.

b. Nominations for Faculty Trustee are due in the Academic Senate Office by noon on November 17, 2006.

c. The Faculty Awards announcement will be distributed this week explaining the process and call for nominations for Outstanding Professor Award, Nicholas Perkins Hardeman Academic Leadership Award, Distinguished Faculty Teaching Award, and the Distinguished Faculty Scholarly and Creative Achievement Award. Completed nominations are due to the committee, via the Academic Senate Office by Tuesday, December 4, 2006.

d. The Wang Family Excellence Award nominations are due by December 11, 2006.

e. The Academic Senate Retreat met with great success providing an opportunity for the participants to discuss and exchange ideas for drafting a Mission and Vision Statement for CSULB. An Interdivisional Committee will be established to draft the statements for presentation to the Academic Senate. An evaluation of the retreat was collected at the conclusion of the event evidencing the following assessment:

· Language for Mission—87%

· Language for Vision—85%

· Effectiveness of table exercises—94%

· Helpful materials (students)—64%

· Confidence about usage—81%

· Retreat length—92%

· Comments—overwhelmingly positive and constructive.

f. The Chancellor’s Office set forth a roadmap for ensuring accessibility of information technology and resources through the “Accessible Technology Initiative” (ATI) in compliance with federal and state laws and CSU policy. The three-year roadmap, which will occur in stages, address three priorities: Web accessibility, instructional materials accessibility, and accessible electronic and information technology procurement. This first year’s focus is on planning, policy and procedures development, communication, and training. A template for a self-assessment plan will be available by the end of October 2006 and implementation will begin the second half of the academic year. Year two begins full implementation of campus plans with the goal of integrating accessibility at the design stage of software, web, and course development, as well as in business and instructional practices. The assessment process to determine the outcomes achieved and the effectiveness of the plan’s implementation will be conducted in the third year. An ATI Technical Assistance Workshop was scheduled for October 30-31, 2006 at LAX and all campuses were invited to send their planning team to obtain the required information, training, and resources for the successful implementation of the initiative.

g. Ken Curtis announced his new position as interim Director of the Center for International Education. He will resign as Vice-Chair of Academic Senate leading to a future election for the vacated post.

h. An Academic Senate resolution supporting Proposition 1D was unanimously passed on September 21, 2006. This proposition is on the November 7th ballot. Please be sure to vote.

i. An Academic Senate meeting is tentatively set for November 30, 2006 if the docket determines a need for it. Please set aside the time; an announcement will be made to confirm the meeting before the Thanksgiving break.

j. A call for input to the Provost Search Committee was made asking that comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. that day.

k. A question arising from the September 21, 2006 meeting concerning faculty parking in Lot 9 was researched and it is determined that current policy states there is no distinction between faculty and staff parking in designated permit lots. Responses from the senators supported the policy that there should be no preferential parking between faculty and staff.

5. REPORT ON THE STUDENT SUCCESS CONFERENCE

Chair Soni reported that the Conference took place on October 19-20, 2006 in Los Angeles and was cosponsored by the ASCSU and the Chancellors Office. Presentations included the implementation of the Board of Trustees directive on the 22 points of light for student success across CSU campuses. The following faculty presenters/participants included Terre Allen—Low Competition Rate Course Project; Andy Espinoza—EOP Overnight Program and Retention; Gayle Fenton—Student Success at CSULB; and Praveen Soni—Interdivisional.

6. CFA REPORT

Lydia Sondhi, President of CSULB Chapter of CFA, provided a presentation on the current bargaining situation. Highlights include current statistics on CFA cooperation to meet past budget crisis without a matching commitment from CSU to make restitution; student fees have increase 76% over the past four years and yet they are not receiving benefits from the increases; the massive amount of money poured into CMS by the CSU without the change promised by the investment; others are becoming aware of departing executive pay and perks through the media; total compensation increases for CSU presidents averaged 19% last year while faculty increases averaged 3.5%; inflation is surpassing faculty salaries by 6%; and overall the current offer by the CSU fails to address adequate compensation. Dr. Sondhi urged everyone to attend the rally planned for the Chancellor’s Office on Wednesday, November 15th from 9:00—12:30. Transportation will be provided.

5. REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Keith Freesemann, Chair, Nominating Committee, presented the following recommendations for appointments:

It was M/S/P to appoint Laura Portnoi, College of Education, Educational Psychology, Administration, and Counseling, to serve on the Faculty Center for Professional Development Advisory Board as a lecturer representative for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2006-07 academic year.

It was M/S/P to appoint Ryan Smith, College of Liberal Arts, Communication Studies, to serve on the Grade Appeals Committee as a lecturer representative for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2006-07 academic year.

It was M/S/P to appoint LaRese Hubbard, College of Liberal Arts, to serve on the University Library Committee for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2006-07 academic year, and Kasha Slowinska, College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Chemistry and Biochemistry, for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2007-08 academic year.

It was M/S/P to appoint Peter Lowentrout, College of Liberal Arts, Religious Studies, to serve on the Academic Appeals Committee, for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2007-08 academic year, Bron Pellissier, College of Liberal Arts, Learning Alliance, for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2006-07 academic year, and Tracy Mayfield, Library and Academic Technology Services, for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2007-08 academic year.

It was M/S/P to appoint Elizabeth Morse, College of the Arts, Dance, to serve on the Committee on Athletics as a lecturer representative for a term expiring at the conclusion of the 2006-07 academic year.

6. STUDENT GRIEVANCE POLICY

Item 7.2, Student Grievance Policy (AS-698-06/CEPC), came before the Senate for a second reading.

It was M/S (Freesemann/Henriques) to amend the proposed Student Grievance Policy as follows:

The following academic policy was recommended by the CSULB Academic Senate on _________ and received the concurrence of the president on _______. This policy statement supersedes PS 95-06 and PS 95-21.

The CSULB grievance policy and procedure are designed to provide the campus community with a protocol to accommodate circumstances for which no other policy or procedure exists. This policy does not cover grade appeals, prohibited discrimination, or any other issues that are covered by existing policies. Students are advised to consult appropriate additional campus resources (e.g., the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalog, the Schedule of Classes, “The Regs”. The Office of the Dean of Students has staff to help students understand the details of the grievance procedure and may be called upon for assistance.

Student Grievance Procedure

The student grievance procedure at CSULB is intended to provide a formal, standardized means for students to seek redress concerning the actions of faculty members, administrators, or staff members of the university-actions that are unauthorized or unjustified and that adversely affect the status, rights, or privileges of the students. Further, the purpose is to establish due process and safeguards that will be followed by the university in the adjudication of grievances.

A grievance filed under this policy must be initiated within one year of the alleged violation. A grievance may not be filed on the basis of a student’s judgment of an instructor’s or administrator’s competence; such judgments are solely the province of the academic department involved or of the administrator’s supervisor.

The grievance procedure is not designed to replace open communication and understanding, which are vital to the academic process. The student may withdraw the grievance at any stage, at which point the process will immediately terminate. During all stages of the grievance, the burden of proof will be on the student.

The person or entity against whom the complaint is made is referred to in this document as the respondent. The initiator of the grievance is referred to as the grievant. For nonacademic matters, the term dean is also construed to refer to the responsible individual of comparable level-typically an associate vice president of vice president.

In the event that the respondent is at the level of dean or higher, the complaint should be directed to the responsible person at the next higher administrative level. If the chair or program director was directly involved in the original decision or denied the student an opportunity for due-process review at the local level, the student should seek informal resolution through the appropriate associate dean of the college (or designee).

If after ten instructional days beyond the initial informal meeting a satisfactory resolution is not reached, the department chair or program director will meet with the student grievant and the respondent. Within fifteen instructional days of that meeting, the chair or program director will complete an investigation of the allegations and will reach conclusion. The chair or program director shall promptly communicate the decision to the student and the respondent. If the grievant is not satisfied with the results of the informal process, he or she may initiate a formal grievance procedure by contacting the appropriate college dean (or designee) or the responsible person at the next nonacademic level within fifteen instructional days of the decision.

Formal Grievance Procedure

To initiate the formal grievance procedure, the student grievant is required to submit a written “statement of grievance” – a clear, concise, signed, and dated statement of events from the student’s perspective. The statement should provide enough information to give the review committee present a complete understanding of the situation and of the remedy sought by the student.

A student initiates the formal procedures by submitting the statement of grievance to the appropriate department chair or program director. The chair or director will then submit a copy of the statement of grievance to the cognizant appropriate college dean or next appropriate higher administrative level and to the respondent. The respondent is required to submit a written response to the chair or program director with ten instructional days. The chair or program director will then provide a copy of the respondent’s reply to the grievant and to the college dean or next appropriate higher administrative level administrator.

The dean or appropriate administrator has a period of ten instructional days to review the case, during which he or she may opt to seek additional information from the parties involved or from witnesses. By the end of that ten-day period, the dean or administrator will either (1) render a decision or (2) convene a college hearing committee to investigate further. The student shall have the right to request that a college hearing committee be convened.

College Hearing Committee

If required, a college hearing committee will consist of an administrator representing the dean, two faculty members elected from the Faculty Council of the appropriate College, a student representative elected from the Student Council of the appropriate College , a designee of the vice president for student services, and faculty adviser elected by the Academic Advising Council appropriate to the grievance. All meetings of the college hearing committee will be closed to the public, and no transcripts will be prepared. If the college hearing committee seeks evidence by means of personal testimony, the meeting at which such evidence is presented shall be conducted in the manner of any other academic committee meeting and is not considered a formal hearing. Both the grievant and respondent shall be given opportunities to present their views. There shall be no cross-examination.

The charge of a college hearing committee is to investigate and then to recommend to the dean a proposed resolution. The college hearing committee will review the grievance and, if necessary, forward supplemental queries to the respondent and to the department chair and program director of the program involved – along with direction to submit written responses with twenty instructional days. Once the college hearing committee has received the written responses, it will review all available evidence, conduct deliberations, and then choose one of the three alternative courses of action:

●Remand the grievance to the dean with a recommendation of immediate corrective action in favor of the grievant-based on sufficient evidence of a violation of (1) university regulation or policy or (2) principle of due process or (3) both.

●Defer a decision to allow for further investigation and gathering of evidence. In the case of such a continuation, both the student grievant and the respondent will be notified in writing of the additional evidence required and whether that evidence should be provided in writing or in personal testimony.

●Dismiss the grievance based on a (1) lack of sufficient evidence of a violation of the university regulation or policy and (2) confirmation of adherence to principles of due process.

The college hearing committee will forward the recommendation to the dean. The dean will then make a decision and forward that decision to the respondent and student grievant. The decision of the dean is final. If neither the respondent nor the grievant requests further review, then the grievance process ends.